Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lizard squad


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep per WP:SNOW, and the large number of substancial references identified as part of this discussion. Nick-D (talk) 00:21, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Lizard squad

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The subject's notability is not well established. There is some coverage of them, but the biggest aspects are cited through their own accounts rather than news coverage. The organization "claims" these attacks as theirs but these claims are not being supported through secondary outlets, particularly their claims of taking down North Korea's internet and XBox/Playstation systems on Christmas Eve. only (talk) 20:05, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:32, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:32, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:32, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:33, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 20:50, 25 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep I count at least 4-5 independent, reliable sources already in the article that cover the subject matter. They also cover the group across more than one event. Ex: this Forbe's article talking about a bomb threat that grounded a plane the Sony president was on.  Artichoker [ talk ] 21:11, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep, and move to Lizard Squad They've earned a hated reputation for a reason, and reliable sources already in the article back up those reasons. Essentially, per Artichoker.  CRRays Head90  | #RaysUp 21:47, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete No proof of their claims. For all we no they could monitor the statud pages and claim they DDOS them when they go down under regular stress (like Christmas). Also, the only reason the hackers continue this is for recognition and fame and similar to WP:DENY we shouldn't really give that to them. EoRdE6 (talk) 01:05, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I think this is some fairly shoddy reasoning. Not having proof of their claims is irrelevant. There are multiple, third-party, reliable sources that provide discriminate coverage to this group. It's not up to you to decide whether there is proof or not; we leave that to the sources. In addition, your last sentence comparing the situation to WP:DENY is silly. Does this mean that we should also not have an article for person X because they did something for fame/recognition, and we shouldn't give that attention to them? Who will decide which subjects Wikipedia will deny coverage to because we don't like what they're doing? You?  Artichoker [ talk ] 04:14, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Even if it does turn our to be a hoax that would not mean that the group suddenly stops being notable. Hoaxes can be notable. For example we did not delete Lonelygirl15 when it was discovered to be a hoax and I am sure any attempt to try to delete it now under that rational would fail spectacularly. Also, WP:DENY is about vandals on Wikipedia not outside people or gropus that meet the notability guidelines. I don't see it applying here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.157.253.160 (talk) 07:21, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - It's not about whether or not their claims are true, its about the coverage they get. It could all be an elaborate hoax and it still would be notable if that hoax is reported on.  JT dale Talk ~ 03:07, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep There has been a wave of coverage in general interest newspapers in recent days. This profile of the group in the Christian Science Monitor is just one example. This is big, enduring news. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  05:48, 26 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep I see no reason to remove this article, it's become apparent that the group has become very notable recently and thus warrants it's own article. Even BBC news has covered stuff on them: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-30602609 and http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/30306319Faissaloo (talk) 11:09, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Merge to Denial-of-service attack, the page is nothing more than a timeline of 'claimed' DDoS attacks, none of which can be substantiated. "Service X went down and Twitter account Y claimed to have done it" 5 times isn't an article. WP is WP:NOTNEWS.--Vaypertrail (talk) 12:17, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * There is more stuff than just DDoS attacks though, such as the Bomb threats, FBI, Kim Dotcom's negotiations with them etc. It makes no sense to merge it with an article about the nature of DDoS attacks Faissaloo (talk) 13:44, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The FBI haven't said anything about investigating them, bomb threat just another 'claim', Kim has 10k tweets, this isn't special. It's all based on hearsay. This isn't another Syrian Electronic Army.--Vaypertrail (talk) 13:50, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes they have: http://www.forbes.com/sites/insertcoin/2014/08/27/fbi-hunted-hacking-group-continues-attacks-targets-twitch/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Faissaloo (talk • contribs) 15:53, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * See my comments about the FBI related sources at Talk:Lizard_squad. The articles you are providing have not shown proof that the FBI is investigating.  only (talk) 16:35, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep and move from "Lizard squad" to properly-capitalized "Lizard Squad". Notability clearly established by international coverage in news media. —Lowellian (reply) 15:59, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep and withdrawal recommended. Not sure what it was like yesterday, but the amount of coverage now is undeniable. Even before that, look at this dedicated coverage:




 * Unless there is an argument that this is something "Wikipedia is not", this topic is very clearly the dedicated subject of multiple in-depth pieces from reliable sources. czar ⨹   16:58, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep, named on BBC television news, so very notable. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:19, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep, No reason to remove article. Corn cheese (talk) 18:39, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep, WP:Notability has been satisifed as per comments and links above Mikesc86 (talk) 20:03, 26 December 2014 (UTC)


 * WP:SNOW keep. The notability of this organization should not be in question, given the abundance of extensive third party coverage.  RFerreira (talk) 20:39, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep, No reason to remove article, for the information is valid, and the group is important enough, due to all of their cyber attacks, in Which there is proof of which they have done so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ILUVLIZARDSQUAD (talk • contribs) 21:12, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * — ILUVLIZARDSQUAD (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Note: This article has previously been deleted 3 times under the name Lizard Squad


 * Rename: Should at least be correctly named to Lizard Squad. EoRdE6 (talk) 23:08, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:SNOW keep, early closure was reverted. Not sure why, as consensus is clearly in favor of keeping the article. Satellizer   (´ ･ ω ･ `)  23:10, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * First WP:SNOW is an essay. Second the discussion hasn't even been going for 24 hours. Is kept, article at least needs an admin move. EoRdE6 (talk) 23:14, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Noted, that "article has previously been deleted 3 times under the name Lizard Squad". Still say keep now. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:12, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - no question about this subjects notability. wp:gng.--BabbaQ (talk) 00:05, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.